Geoengineers - it's showtime!

[RAU greg]

"The Copenhagen conference next month is [correction: was - GR] in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way,"  World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise - which would be much higher nearer the poles - would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilisation. We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s. This means that the most extreme scenario envisaged in the last report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, published in 2007, is now the one for which society is set, according to the 31 researchers from seven countries involved in the Global Carbon Project. Although the 6C rise and its potential disastrous effects have been speculated upon before, this is the first time that scientists have said that society is now on a path to meet it. Their chilling and remarkable prediction throws into sharp relief the importance of next month's UN climate conference in Copenhagen, where the world community will come together to try to construct a new agreement to bring the warming under control. For the past month there has been a lowering of expectations about the conference, not least because the US may not be ready to commit itself to cuts in its emissions. But yesterday President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao of China issued a joint communiqué after a meeting in Beijing, which reignited hopes that a serious deal might be possible after all. It cannot come too soon, to judge by the results of the Global Carbon Project study, led by Professor Corinne Le Quéré, of the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, which found that there has been a 29 per cent increase in global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008, the last year for which figures are available. On average, the researchers found, there was an annual increase in emissions of just over 3 per cent during the period, compared with an annual increase of 1 per cent between 1990 and 2000. Almost all of the increase this decade occurred after 2000 and resulted from the boom in the Chinese economy. The researchers predict a small decrease this year due to the recession, but further increases from 2010. In total, CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 41 per cent between 1990 and 2008, yet global emissions in 1990 are the reference level set by the Kyoto Protocol, which countries are trying to fall below in terms of their own emissions. The 6C rise now being anticipated is in stark contrast to the C rise at which all international climate policy, including that of Britain and the EU, hopes to stabilise the warming - two degrees being seen as the threshold of climate change which is dangerous for society and the natural world. The study by Professor Le Quéré and her team, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, envisages a far higher figure. "We're at the top end of the IPCC scenario," she said. Professor Le Quéré said that Copenhagen was the last chance of coming to a global agreement that would curb carbon-dioxide emissions on a time-course that would hopefully stabilise temperature rises to within the danger threshold. "The Copenhagen conference next month is in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way," she said. "If the agreement is too weak, or the commitments not respected, it is not 2.5C or 3C we will get: it's 5C or 6C - that is the path we're on. The timescales here are extremely tight for what is needed to stabilise the climate at C," she said. Meanwhile, the scientists have for the first time detected a failure of the Earth's natural ability to absorb man-made carbon dioxide released into the air. They found significant evidence that more man-made CO2 is staying in the atmosphere to exacerbate the greenhouse effect because the natural "carbon sinks" that have absorbed it over previous decades on land and sea are beginning to fail, possibly as a result of rising global temperatures. The amount of CO2 that has remained in the atmosphere as a result has increased from about 40 per cent in 1990 to 45 per cent in 2008. This suggests that the sinks are beginning to fail, they said. Professor Le Quéré emphasised that there are still many uncertainties over carbon sinks, such as the ability of the oceans to absorb dissolved CO2, but all the evidence suggests that there is now a cycle of "positive feedbacks", whereby rising carbon dioxide emissions are leading to rising temperatures and a corresponding rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "Our understanding at the moment in the computer models we have used - and they are state of the art - suggests that carbon-cycle climate feedback has already kicked in," she said. "These models, if you project them on into the century, show quite large feedbacks, with climate amplifying global warming by between 5 per cent and 30 per cent. There are still large uncertainties, but this is carbon-cycle climate feedback that has already started," she said. The study also found that, for the first time since the 1960s, the burning of coal has overtaken the burning of oil as the major source of carbon-dioxide emissions produced by fossil fuels. Much of this coal was burned by China in producing goods sold to the West - the scientists estimate that 45 per cent of Chinese emissions resulted from making products traded overseas. It is clear that China, having overtaken the US as the world's biggest carbon emitter, must be central to any new climate deal, and so the communiqué from the Chinese and US leaders issued yesterday was widely seized on as a sign that progress may be possible in the Danish capital next month. Presidents Hu and Obama specifically said an accord should include emission-reduction targets for rich nations, and a declaration of action plans to ease greenhouse-gas emissions in developing countries - key elements in any deal. 6C rise: The consequences If two degrees is generally accepted as the threshold of dangerous climate change, it is clear that a rise of six degrees in global average temperatures must be very dangerous indeed, writes Michael McCarthy. Just how dangerous was signalled in 2007 by the science writer Mark Lynas, who combed all the available scientific research to construct a picture of a world with temperatures three times higher than the danger limit. His verdict was that a rise in temperatures of this magnitude "would catapult the planet into an extreme greenhouse state not seen for nearly 100 million years, when dinosaurs grazed on polar rainforests and deserts reached into the heart of Europe". He said: "It would cause a mass extinction of almost all life and probably reduce humanity to a few struggling groups of embattled survivors clinging to life near the poles." Very few species could adapt in time to the abruptness of the transition, he suggested. "With the tropics too hot to grow crops, and the sub-tropics too dry, billions of people would find themselves in areas of the planet which are essentially uninhabitable. This would probably even include southern Europe, as the Sahara desert crosses the Mediterranean. "As the ice-caps melt, hundreds of millions will also be forced to move inland due to rapidly-rising seas. As world food supplies crash, the higher mid-latitude and sub-polar regions would become fiercely-contested refuges. "The British Isles, indeed, might become one of the most desirable pieces of real estate on the planet. But, with a couple of billion people knocking on our door, things might quickly turn rather ugly."

[Manu Sharma]

A paper based on this study by Global Carbon Project was published in Nature Geoscience two days ago:

Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo689.html

 

Manu

[David Schnare]

Except that the temperature has refused to follow the CO2 trend. 

 

We are begining to see more and more extreme statements of alarm that depart from actual observations.  Further, the Nature paper is but one view.  See the Knorr paper showing the opposite outcome.  Ask yourself, which one is based on models and which one is based on observations.  Then ask yourself it that's important to you as a scientist.

 

David Schnare

 

Public Release: 10-Nov-2009  Geophysical Research Letters Controversial new climate change data New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.  Natural Environment Research Council Contact: Cherry Lewis cherry...@bristol.ac.uk 44-117-928-8086 University of Bristol

- - - - -

Controversial new climate change results
Press release  issued 9 November 2009

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO ₂  than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO ₂  should start to diminish as CO ₂  emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”. 
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience  by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
Please contact Cherry Lewis  for further information.

- - - - - - -
 

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Wolfgang Knorr Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found. Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009. Citation: Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36 , L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
David W. Schnare
Center for Environmental Stewardship

[Margaret Leinen]

Here is a link to an article on the Ars Technica blog that talks about the difference between the results of the Nature Geosciences paper and the GRL paper:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/11/have-we-started-to-fill-our-carbon-sinks.ars

The short story is that the GRL paper is based on records going back to 1850, the Nature Geosciences paper is based on records going back to 1960, when emissions started to rise more rapidly.  Timmer , the author of the Ars Technica article, argues that the latter is more appropriate because this is the current trend and because including the earlier data “runs the risk of having earlier data swamp more recent (and, arguably, relevant) trends. In addition, it necessarily extends into years where reporting on things like land use was sketchy or nonexistent, creating more significant uncertainties”.

On 11/18/09 4:32 PM, "David Schnare" <dwsc...@gmail.com> wrote:

Except that the temperature has refused to follow the CO2 trend. 
 
We are begining to see more and more extreme statements of alarm that depart from actual observations.  Further, the Nature paper is but one view.  See the Knorr paper showing the opposite outcome.  Ask yourself, which one is based on models and which one is based on observations.  Then ask yourself it that's important to you as a scientist.
 
David Schnare
 
Public Release: 10-Nov-2009
 Geophysical Research Letters

Controversial new climate change data <http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html>

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
 Natural Environment Research Council

Contact: Cherry Lewis cherry...@bristol.ac.uk <mailto:cherry...@bristol.ac.uk> 44-117-928-8086 University of Bristol <http://www.bristol.ac.uk/>

- - - - -

Controversial new climate change results
Press release  issued 9 November 2009

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO 2  than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO 2  should start to diminish as CO 2

 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”. 
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience  by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

Please contact Cherry Lewis <mailto:cherry...@bristol.ac.uk>  for further information.

- - - - - - -

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.
Citation: Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36 , L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.



 
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Manu Sharma <orang...@gmail.com> wrote:

A paper based on this study by Global Carbon Project was published in Nature Geoscience two days ago:

Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo689.html
 
Manu

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 11:20 PM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 "The Copenhagen conference next month is [correction: was - GR] in my opinion the last chance to stabilise climate at C above pre-industrial levels in a smooth and organised way," 
World on course for catastrophic 6° rise, reveal scientists
By Steve Connor and Michael McCarthy
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/world-on-course-for-catastrophic-6deg-rise-reveal-scientists-1822396.html
Fast-rising carbon emissions mean that worst-case predictions for climate change are coming true

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
Margaret Leinen, PhD.
CEO, Climate Response Fund
211 N. Union Street
Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
P 202-415-6545
F 703-842-8031
mle...@climateresponsefund.org

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi David,
 
I think you may have overlooked on this. The temperature had followed the CO2 trend definitely since the industrial revolution. The issue this paper is not about denying the accumulative effect of rising p.p.m. which Charles Keeling's work has well established since 1950's.
 
What the paper points to is that there has not been change in ratio 40% airbone / 60% absorved carbon dioxide. The airborne CO2 fraction in ratio has been increasing only 1.4% +/-0.7% per decade since year 1850. Though, when multiplied by 16 decades, the cumulative increases amount to growth from the base year (1850) much more. The chief importance is not to challenge the accumulation of CO2, but the health of CO2 sinks.
 
If the CO2 sinks are starting to decline carbon dioxide intake, and the proportion of 60% absorved carbon dioxide starts to fall, this means that then more radical cuts on the emissions will be required if the absorved emissions proportion starts to decrease from current amouts we can dump in the air.
 
Both the athmospheric CO2 can grow if both airborne and absorved volumes both grow in line or the absorbtion follows increasing in line with what is being put out, but the level of CO2 is now nearly 400 p.p.m. a major rise since 1957. It also bears in mind that the oceans are acidifying and this cause ecosystem damages as well, which is nothing to do with the climate or temperature, but the pH of sea water.
 
This is a good news for the moment, however, it is also well known that the warmer liquids absorb less gases. The only way sea water could negate this is by increasing algae booms or other biological growth that uses up the additional carbon stocks that dissolve into water. You also need to bear in mind feedback loops, the melting permafrost will release carbon too and we cannot safely extrapolate to infinity on this.
 
It is more than likely that somewhere there suddenly pops up an abrupt tipping point when the system saturates and may even start reverse.
 
Kind regards,
 
Albert

 

---

Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:32:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
From: dwsc...@gmail.com
To: orang...@gmail.com
CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.com

---

View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.

[Eugene I. Gordon]

David’s excellent comment was ignored. In any case the real issue is have we reached a temperature point beyond where we want to be. It is not going to stop or get cooler by wishing for reduction in CO2 emissions. What CO2 is already in the atmosphere is going to hang around for a long time and the concentration will continue to grow. The solution is not simply stopping insertion of more CO2 in, but active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or blocking sunlight. Convincing governments, companies, and people to go green is too late. Save the airfare to Copenhagen.

 

Why are all of you having so much trouble to say it? The only solutions that can work are based on geoengineering.

 

-gene

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[David Schnare]

Albert

Read the Knorr paper. 

David Schnare

Center for Environmental Stewardship

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[David Schnare]

Gene makes the point I have been making for the last three years. The question is not about mitigation. The question is as to when you guys on this List are going to be honest to your core alarmist view--that it is, under your scientific orthodoxy, that it is simply too late to avoid using geoengineering. 

The only ways to avoid using geo are either to willing partake of the catastrophe or to revisit the core AGW assumption.   

You simply have no other choices. 

David Schnare

Center for Environmental Stewardship

[Eugene I. Gordon]

David is right and we are not cooking this up together. My view is independent. As an outside observer who has been allowed to partake in these discussions, it is clear you all do not have the balls or other equipment to say for consumption what David just said. And the carefully incorrect view you present to the outside world has not bought you much support so far and most likely won’t. You need to go for it.

 

For historical reasons I mention Galileo and the Catholic church. He was of course right and he argued but they had him in the end. Don’t be had by the establishment.

 

-gene

[Dan Whaley]

And this from today's NYT....

NYTIMES

November 19, 2009
Seas Grow Less Effective at Absorbing Emissions

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

The Earth’s oceans, which have absorbed carbon dioxide from fuel
emissions since the dawn of the industrial era, have recently grown
less efficient at sopping it up, new research suggests.

Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels began soaring in the 1950s,
and oceans largely kept up, scientists say. But the growth in the
intake rate has slowed since the 1980s, and markedly so since 2000,
the authors of a study write in a report in Thursday’s issue of
Nature.

The research suggests that the seas cannot indefinitely be considered
a reliable “carbon sink” as humans generate heat-trapping gases linked
to global warming.

The slowdown in the rise of the absorption rate resulted from a
gradual change in the oceans’ chemistry, the study found. “The more
carbon dioxide the ocean absorbs, the more acidic it becomes and the
less carbon dioxide it can absorb,” said the study’s lead author,
Samar Khatiwala, a research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth
Observatory of Columbia University and a professor at the Georgia
Institute of Technology.

“It’s a small change in absolute terms,” Dr. Khatiwala said. “What I
think is fairly clear and important in the long term is the trend
toward lower values, which implies that more of the emissions will
remain in the atmosphere.”

To calculate the slowdown, Dr. Khatiwala and his collaborators created
a mathematical model using tens of thousands of measurements of
seawater collected over the past 20 years, including temperature,
salinity and the presence of manufactured chlorofluorocarbons as a
reflection of industrial activity.

They then worked backward with the data to create a formula that
estimated the accumulation of human-generated carbon dioxide in the
oceans from 1765, the opening of the industrial era, to 2008.

Even as human-generated emissions of carbon dioxide increase, the
oceans’ uptake rate growth appears to have dropped by 10 percent from
2000 to 2007, Dr. Khatiwala said.

The last major research effort to measure industrial carbon uptake in
the oceans was published in a 2004 Science study led by Christopher
Sabine.

His methodology was different but arrived at similar conclusions.

Dr. Sabine used carbon dioxide measurements taken by more than 100
cruise ships to come up with a single figure: the oceans’ total
industrial carbon uptake until 1994.

Dr. Khatiwala’s approach provides estimates of ocean carbon storage
for every year from 1765 to 2008.

“Sabine’s estimate was like a single fuzzy snapshot,” Dr. Khatiwala
said. “We’ve gone from that to having a relatively short movie of what
happened from the start of the industrial era.”

Dr. Sabine said he agreed with the analogy, pointing out that his
estimate for uptake up to 1994 was very close to Dr. Khatiwala’s for
that period.

“Even though the techniques are completely different, they are in
consensus at the one point that we can compare them,” Dr. Sabine said.

Yet much work remains to be done to confirm the results and to expand
upon them, Dr. Khatiwala said.

On Nov 19, 4:08 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David is right and we are not cooking this up together. My view is independent. As an outside observer who has been allowed to partake in these discussions, it is clear you all do not have the balls or other equipment to say for consumption what David just said. And the carefully incorrect view you present to the outside world has not bought you much support so far and most likely won’t. You need to go for it.
>
> For historical reasons I mention Galileo and the Catholic church. He was of course right and he argued but they had him in the end. Don’t be had by the establishment.
>
> -gene
>

> From: David Schnare [mailto:dwschn...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 9:03 PM
> To: Eugene I. Gordon
> Cc: <albert_kal...@hotmail.com>; <orangeh...@gmail.com>; Geoengineering FIPC
> Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
>
> Gene makes the point I have been making for the last three years. The question is not about mitigation. The question is as to when you guys on this List are going to be honest to your core alarmist view--that it is, under your scientific orthodoxy, that it is simply too late to avoid using geoengineering.
>
> The only ways to avoid using geo are either to willing partake of the catastrophe or to revisit the core AGW assumption.  
>
> You simply have no other choices.
>
> David Schnare
>
> Center for Environmental Stewardship
>

> On Nov 18, 2009, at 8:49 PM, "Eugene I. Gordon" <euggor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> David’s excellent comment was ignored. In any case the real issue is have we reached a temperature point beyond where we want to be. It is not going to stop or get cooler by wishing for reduction in CO2 emissions. What CO2 is already in the atmosphere is going to hang around for a long time and the concentration will continue to grow. The solution is not simply stopping insertion of more CO2 in, but active removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or blocking sunlight. Convincing governments, companies, and people to go green is too late. Save the airfare to Copenhagen.
>
> Why are all of you having so much trouble to say it? The only solutions that can work are based on geoengineering.
>
> -gene
>

> From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert_kal...@hotmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 8:16 PM
> To: dwschn...@gmail.com; orangeh...@gmail.com
> Cc: Geoengineering FIPC
> Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!
>
> Hi David,
>
> I think you may have overlooked on this. The temperature had followed the CO2 trend definitely since the industrial revolution. The issue this paper is not about denying the accumulative effect of rising p.p.m. which Charles Keeling's work has well established since 1950's.
>
> What the paper points to is that there has not been change in ratio 40% airbone / 60% absorved carbon dioxide. The airborne CO2 fraction in ratio has been increasing only 1.4% +/-0.7% per decade since year 1850. Though, when multiplied by 16 decades, the cumulative increases amount to growth from the base year (1850) much more. The chief importance is not to challenge the accumulation of CO2, but the health of CO2 sinks.
>
> If the CO2 sinks are starting to decline carbon dioxide intake, and the proportion of 60% absorved carbon dioxide starts to fall, this means that then more radical cuts on the emissions will be required if the absorved emissions proportion starts to decrease from current amouts we can dump in the air.
>
> Both the athmospheric CO2 can grow if both airborne and absorved volumes both grow in line or the absorbtion follows increasing in line with what is being put out, but the level of CO2 is now nearly 400 p.p.m. a major rise since 1957. It also bears in mind that the oceans are acidifying and this cause ecosystem damages as well, which is nothing to do with the climate or temperature, but the pH of sea water.
>
> This is a good news for the moment, however, it is also well known that the warmer liquids absorb less gases. The only way sea water could negate this is by increasing algae booms or other biological growth that uses up the additional carbon stocks that dissolve into water. You also need to bear in mind feedback loops, the melting permafrost will release carbon too and we cannot safely extrapolate to infinity on this.
>
> It is more than likely that somewhere there suddenly pops up an abrupt tipping point when the system saturates and may even start reverse.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Albert
>
>   _____  
>

> Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:32:40 -0500
> Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!

> From: dwschn...@gmail.com
> To: orangeh...@gmail.com

> CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>
> Except that the temperature has refused to follow the CO2 trend.  
>
> We are begining to see more and more extreme statements of alarm that depart from actual observations.  Further, the Nature paper is but one view.  See the Knorr paper showing the opposite outcome.  Ask yourself, which one is based on models and which one is based on observations.  Then ask yourself it that's important to you as a scientist.
>
> David Schnare
>
> Public Release: 10-Nov-2009
>  Geophysical Research Letters

>  <http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html> Controversial new climate change data

> New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of CO2 has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of CO2 having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now. This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
>  Natural Environment Research Council

> Contact: Cherry Lewis
 <mailto:cherry.le...@bristol.ac.uk>  cherry.le...@bristol.ac.uk 
44-117-928-8086
 <http://www.bristol.ac.uk/>  University of Bristol

>
> - - - - -
>
> Controversial new climate change results
> Press release  issued 9 November 2009 New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
>
> This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO 2  than had been previously expected.
> The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO 2  should start to diminish as CO 2  emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
> The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
> This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
> So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
> Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience  by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.

> Please contact  <mailto:cherry.le...@bristol.ac.uk> Cherry Lewis  for further information.

>
> - - - - - - -
>
> Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
>
> Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
> Wolfgang Knorr
> Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
>
> Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.
> Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.
> Citation: Knorr, W. (2009), Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?, Geophys. Res. Lett. , 36 , L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.
>

> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Manu Sharma <orangeh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> A paper based on this study by Global Carbon Project was published in Nature Geoscience two days ago:
>

> Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon ...
>
> read more »

[Glyn Roberts]

I have observed an enormous amount of valuable discussion on this
googlegroup. People have violently diverse views on how to move
forward. The discussions have influenced my opinions on some tough
philosophical aspects of geoengineering and the climate crisis, and
I'm sure it does the same for others who are active in the sector,
working on solutions and trying to influence change.

This is not the forum to carry out that work, only to interact with
people with the common interest. A diversity of ideas and
perspectives is always healthy.

So my questions are: What is the scientific data to assert the size
of our balls? How can you assert groupthink?

After three years of making your carefully incorrect views, give up.

Glyn

[Ken Caldeira]

Anybody who sends email to this group about sizes of testicles will be put on the "moderated list" and any such message will be rejected. People who repeatedly discuss issues in such terms will be designated as "spam" senders.

This is not the level of conversation we want on this email group.

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

kcal...@ciw.edu; kcal...@stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968  

[Veli Albert Kallio]

Hi,
 
I can only but agree Ken's arguments, we do not want our e-mails stolen and circulated like the University of Anglia's climate unit and the read these kind of stories in newspapers.
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
 
E-mail is basically a written media and as such is prone to abuse, if someone's political reason rose. Also, when the doctors and nurses in night duty went hide and seek during work at quiet hours in hospitals, for such a triviality, they were almost dismissed and publicly reprimanded. So, if you are taking this seriously, please guard your language.
 
People who habitually use vulgar language bring our standards and dignity down. We become like Pirellis' nude girl calendar. There are warnings of bad language and nudity every time before film starts if it contains strong language or nude or violent scenes.
 
I can understand and put up with a 'blib in tongue', but if it is a habit it really pisses me off. So, let's try to keep this site in tidy language and avoid those things and Ken's position is therefore most reasonable to drill on this point. (All this saves us potential later abuse and shame if the messages end up in wrong hands and in wrong places like happened to the climate scientist at the University of Anglia.)
 
kr, albert
 

---

Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:26:03 -0800

Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineers - it's showtime!

From: kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
To: glynlr...@gmail.com
CC: dwsc...@gmail.com; eugg...@comcast.net; albert...@hotmail.com; orang...@gmail.com; geoengi...@googlegroups.com

Anybody who sends email to this group about ... will be put on the "moderated list" and any such message will be rejected. People who repeatedly discuss issues in such terms will be designated as "spam" senders.

[Hawkins, Dave]

All messages on this group are public already:  http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?lnk=srg

---

From: Veli Albert Kallio [mailto:albert...@hotmail.com]

Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 3:27 PM
To: kcal...@gmail.com; glynlr...@gmail.com
Cc: dwsc...@gmail.com; eugg...@comcast.net; orang...@gmail.com; Geoengineering FIPC